Comment by Don LeRoi on August 8, 2010 at 8:37am

Regardless of the quality (which I would question), it's still a clone. There was no innovation, just copying of someone else's work.

If you've ever designed new hardware or software, then you know it's a time consuming, expensive endeavor. Companies spread that expense over the life of the product. That's how they make money. If they can't make a profit they will stop designing new products. Then where will we be?

This Walmart mentality is killing creativity. Imagine what heavy, NiCad powered, unstable aircraft we would be flying today if those "price gouging" companies hadn't been around to design the things that are being unscrupulously cloned!

JMHO.

- Don

Moderator Comment by Morli on August 8, 2010 at 9:42am

IMHO, Million $ UAVs crash too and often never heard off. Billion $ aircraft crash too( very often). most of these so called technologies are never invented. You read about them , study them and learn from them and redo without repeting he same mistakes. Now that is not a excuse for outright industrial espionage but most if this can be debated in grey areas. both the oiginal( factory) and the clone are chinese for years. The last 2 ch "Futaba made in Japan" I saw was in late 90s. BTW the so called clone in this topic is not exact match as per internet story , some or atleast one of the chip is different...

Developer Comment by John Arne Birkeland on August 8, 2010 at 9:47am

Btw. If you look at the circuit and read about the OrangeFX company, we are talking about reverse engineering, not cloning. And last time I checked that is still legal. Jason at HobbyKing said some time ago that they had been offered "chinese clones" at a much cheaper price then the OrangeFX receivers, but declined to sell them because of quality and legal issues.

Moderator Comment by Morli on August 8, 2010 at 10:00am

Typos , sorry,
Read " You read about them , study them, understand( read evolution) and learn from them and redo without repeating the same mistakes". If knowledge has to be boxed, packaged ,sold with a specific price tag then Man would not be standing let alone walking or flying . if you are afraid of sharing such idea then don't , please this is not place for you. You are voiceing your concern in Open source forum , please remember. you can't have Aunty and Moustache too. We as Open source forum have often voiced the reasoning and vision for such endouvor , i

Comment by Melih Karakelle on August 8, 2010 at 10:07am

@john

Ofcourse they need reverse engineering for cloning because they can't read the code of CPU :))) this is already cloning. Hobbyking saying "Futaba Clone" I guess futaba and spectrum will sue them because you can't use Futaba's name on your fake product. Like "iPhone clone" or "Ardupilot copy" :) this is the last point of illegality.

Maybe can clone the ardupilot and I can sell it from 10$ who cares :)))
what a world!

Developer Comment by Michael Smith on August 8, 2010 at 10:19am

@don - ROI is one thing, but as a hobbyist consumer my interests are not well served by vendor lock-in. As an engineer, TTM and TTFC (first clone) factor into the decision-making process at the engineering budget time. Both Horizon and Futaba have more than cashed out on their ROI for DSM and FASST; at this point the folks crying foul are just defending someone else's profit margin, which is a bit of a head-scratcher.

@melih - "The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on" applies equally well to the tech industry, no matter how well you pay your patent attorneys and lobbyists.

As for "what a world", definitely. Absent the diffusion of ideas the state of the art would stagnate and there would be no competitive pressure to advance it. Now that Horizon and Futaba have lost their lock-in the playing field is levelled. If they, or anyone else, wants to improve their share, they need to bring to market a more desirable product.

Developer Comment by John Arne Birkeland on August 8, 2010 at 10:20am

@Melih
Actually if you read the HobbyKing product article they never mention the word clone. Instead it states "Futaba compatible receiver". Both technically and legally those two words have a very different meaning.

Moderator Comment by Morli on August 8, 2010 at 10:23am

Reverse engineering no easy feat it almost take as much effort IMHO , if you are smart then make it impossible to do so. Today's ton wheat is 256$ is same is lot less than what it was few years ago. So who invented hunger?!!

3D Robotics Comment by Chris Anderson on August 8, 2010 at 10:29am

@Melih. Actually our licence encourages people to "clone" ArduPilot (manufacture it or a derivative design and sell it commercially with no royalty necessary). If they can do it as well as us for $10, so much the better--the community wins and we can focus on manufacturing other things where we add more value.

As you might guess from an Open Source community, we don't have much interest in lock-in, patents, or protected IP (beyond our Open Source licenses). I'm with Michael Smith on this one.

Developer Comment by Michael Smith on August 8, 2010 at 10:38am

I actually have feet in both camps; I've worked the Open Source angle for many years, and at the same time I've worked for both very small and very large for-profit organisations. In every case, competitive advantage is maintained by continual advancement, not by trying to protect your one good idea. This is just as true in the FOSS world, ironically; the currency is different, but the basic principle (attracting interest and commitment) is fundamentally the same.

What really boggles me about these discussions though is the number of people willing lash out at new entries into the marketplace, as though the established players somehow need their support. The willingness to make up libel for the same of demonising new entrants is just amazing.

Even the racist overtones in the "clone from china BAD!" copypasta are nothing new; witness the original arrival of the Japanese and then Korean (and now Indian and chinese) automakers in the US marketplace.

We as consumers are badly served by this sort of reactionary behaviour; it's very much in our interest to evaluate both the products and the suppliers we're buying from as objectively as possible, and that's almost impossible when the conversation is dominated by FUD and emotional tangents.

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next ›
• Page